Bitcoin Forum

Bush helped making the republican party somewhat weaker. Obama helped destroying the big government loving liberals mindset.

Now I hope both conservatives and liberals will be more skeptical than ever about letting "elected citizen" do whatever they want without any questions once in post of power.

Now I hope the Media will understand they are tools when they stop being critical about the power that be.


Eating cheddar flavored popcorn right now. What a week!

I agree completely. Obama got elected on a platform of "hope" and "change," and his administration has shown that it's hopeless, the only change you'll get is for the worse.

Hmm... I don't know. Bush may have made the Republican party somewhat weaker (debatable), but he sure as hell made government MUCH stronger and bigger. Obama just demonstrated that Democrats aren't much better than Republicans when it comes to screwing with civil liberties and continuing pointless wars. I do agree that maybe both of them will have pushed more democrats and republicans into libertarians though, but I would suspect that number is rather small.


As for the media, they know they are tools. They don't care. It's what they get paid for. By the stupid people who keep voting Democrat and Republican.

One way in which I do think both of them have helped is by making government just a little bit more intolerable. As it squeezes harder, people tend to look for ways to get around it, and technologies like encryption, Bitcoin, 3D printers, Tor, P2P filesharing, and mesh networking, which are more liberating than anything else, will see wider adoption. "The more they squeeze, the more runs through their fingers" kinda thing.

Both dominant political parties in the US are so close together on a political scale that they are indecipherable from each other.

I like to call them the Imperialist parties.

Obama is a lying sack of shit.This is coming from a person who supported Obama at first but at the time didnt know a damn thing about him(Like most people who support him).Everything he does is a lie.Everything democrats do is a lie.(Same can be said about the republicans too).But the thing that makes me the most angry is the fact is they are lying to your face.Looking you straight in the eye and telling you a lie.Honestly tell me something he did while he was a president??Cant name a damn thing.And that was his first term so tell me why would he get reelected again?Thats like saying you getting to keep your job while your doing nothing thats in your job description/what you getting paid for.Being a president is a job,and he should be fired same thing goes for all the rest in the government.Like I always said.What you know about Obama is what they want you to know about him.Nobody knows a damn thing about him.He didn't do anything major while he was working in the senate so tell me how is he qualified to become a President?

You are a prime example of what the OP meant. :) Good morning.

I read the first post I understand now.Sorry for being rude.

No, no... Don't apologize! Those things need to be said, and better they are said by a former supporter than anyone else. :)

:) lol

The fact that those same people keep getting elected has changed my mindset from thinking I should be helping Americans to be more free to realizing that they do not want to be free. It was not so much Obama winning as Ron Paul losing, twice...when people actually heard a voice of liberty and turned their back on it, or worse...openly attacked it.

That the best approach is to foster those things which allow the few among us who actually crave freedom to have a vehicle to do so.

How's this? http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com
Not all of it is good. Like the slew of regulations. But the student loan thing, the nuclear reduction thing, the pro-gay things and pro-women's rights things, and the pro-science things were good. There are definitely a lot of things that he did. That's likely part of the reason he got reelected.

spending, spending, spending, regulation, spending, spending...

Here are some
Lifted restrictions granting Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island
Eliminated subsidies to private lender middlemen of student loans
Expanded hate crime law in the US to include sexual orientation
Extended Benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees
Reversed 'global gag rule', allowing US aid to go to organizations regardless of whether they provide abortions
Signed New START Treaty - nuclear arms reduction pact with Russia
First president to endorse same-sex marriage equality
Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women
Reversed the policy of barring media coverage during the return of fallen soldiers to Dover Air Force Base
Signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop fraud and wasteful spending in the defense procurement and contracting system
Ended Bush administration's CIA program of 'enhanced interrogation methods'
Tax cuts for up to 3.5 million small businesses to help pay for employee health care coverage


Don't really have a problem with any of that..

A good start.

Ending subsidies is always good.

More thought crimes.  ::)

More money to equalize bad policy.

More money to equalize bad spending.

A good start.

More regulation to equalize bad government intervention.

Pay control regulation.

I hope the media respects the families of those soldiers.

Signed in 2009...I have not noticed any changes in oversight as a defense contractor...I hope it helps, I notice that the law had plenty of mulit-billion dollar projects that were excluded.

I hope so

I am sure those businesses are overjoyed by those small tax cuts to help pay for a business killing health care system while large companies are getting waivers

One thing that is being UN-changed that I am hopeful about: Obamacare repeal passed congress today, maybe senate will agree and toss the 2000-page shit out

Well, now.

That about sums it up.

"Give them bread and circuses!"

Agreed.  Both are bought and paid for, just by slightly different groups of people. 

I wonder, if someone accidentally plows down and kills a pedestrian, or accidentally walks out with something in their hand forgetting to pay for it, do you think they are as guilty and should be punished the same as someone who committed planned deliberate murder or robbery?


What is the bad policy? Government recognition and protection of marriage contracts?


Lol!
No. They pass a repeal every few months. Senate is majority Democrats (it only seems Republican controlled because filibusters made 60%+ votes a requirement), and obviously Obama will veto any attempts to get rid of his signature legislation.

What does the government care of your personal life?  For that matter, why should it?  And why should Joe from Arkansas even have a say in whether or not two people he's never met can get married?

I'm watching my premium will do my own veto if there is any kind of significant change.

The punitive damages should be minimal, and preferably limited to any additional costs incurred by third parties (eg, investigators, "court costs," etc). An innocent mistake or accident would have little to no third-party cost, while a premeditated crime could well have much more. Of course, if a premeditated vehicular murderer feigns contrition after the fact, there's no real way to tell if it was an innocent accident or murder.

Government benefits to married couples, is my guess... but it's no different from a private industry doing the same, aside from the tax funding.

They shouldn't. And they should recognize a legal contract for anyone who wishes to sign into one.

An issue that is a bit complicated, is the couple's adoption of a child, the child cannot make a decision for himself/herself.

Can any child pick their parents? At the very least, I would think that parents that picked their kids, no matter what (or who) they do in the bedroom, would be better off than the average, especially these days.

Guess what, watching American politics actually helps me to understand the "Network effect" better.

If next time people ask me why can't someone just make a Bitcoin clone and render Bitcoin worthless, I'll lead them to think why can't someone create a political party with a similar campaign platform to Democrats/Republicans and win the election.

The problem is, let's say a gay couple adopting a girl, there would be some problems as there are definitely a few things no one but a mother can teach her daughter, so maybe the girl will need a "mother substitute" somehow.

Like what?

You mak ask your wife/mother. ::) It's a complex business to be a woman.

No, I'm honestly curious what things you think only a woman can teach another woman.

I am not in a position to answer(I said "maybe") in detail because I am not one. But I doubt all those industries catering their special needs are created for no reason. :P

LMFAO. Come on now. Really? Ok. I'll see your perceived issue (that two caring gay parents is worse than no parents) and raise you a few more.

(1) What should be done about orphans? As I pointed out above, presumably you believe they are better off remaining orphans with NO mother (in the case of a daughter).
(2) Mother dies in childbirth, daughter survives. Single father. What do? Set a legal maximum time before remarriage? (Forced marriage, why not... so long as the government knows best, just about anything can be done if it's "for the children"!)
(3) Two lesbians adopting a daughter. Is this okay? Two mothers to teach a daughter the things that only a mother can teach, has to be better than one!
(4) Two gay men raising a son. Under the same reasoning, presumably, this is a good thing also. Still unclear what these "things" are that only those of biologically-identical sex can teach, but we're in your world, so let's run with it.
(5) Corollary to #3: Two lesbians with a son. Worse? Or better?
(6) Corollary to #4: Two gays with a daughter. Wait... okay, we already said that's bad, hang on. Okay. Guess that answers #5 as well, unless you're completely illogical and hypocritical...
(6) Corollaries to #3 and #4, rethought: Can we enforce gender roles? Maybe two lesbians or two gays is okay, as long as one agrees to "wear the pants" and one to be he "bottom". Then the masculine ones can teach the son football and misogyny and the feminine ones can teach daughters to cook and clean, and properly use feminine hygiene products, etc.

Needs to create a regional strong third party

Hi, where did I say this is a strict "no-go"? Do you like to go all scientific on one hand, and make a lot of assumptions about others on the other hand? Re-read what I really said, OK?

Besides, it's important to point out, that very lengthy and elaborated assessment is already required in nearly any nation for a couple to adopt any children, whatever your approach is, it has to be a very complicated approach, as human emotion is a very complicated thing. But I guess for most of the geeks it's not that easy to understand.

Are gay men somehow incapable of reading instructions?

FFS, man, I know how to put in a tampon, and that's just 'cuz I got bored one day in the bathroom, and the only reading material available was the tampon box. Incidentally, that's also how I learned about TSS.

You cannot really "feel" it, because you don't grow their parts, and there are many things which can only be learned with experience, like the difference between science and engineering. And this is, after all, only the most shallow of things, have you ever wondered why you can't figure out what a woman has been thinking all day?

Fun fact: Gay men's brains are actually structured similar to a woman's. There's reason to believe a gay man might make a much better mother than a straight man in the same situation.

And certainly you wouldn't support taking away a single straight man's daughter, simply because he doesn't have a wife?

Haha...


Relax, don't take it too seriously. I exist in a bubble of sarcasm, which I am told is the lowest form of wit, so I'm probably very stupid. I don't take anything I say too seriously, and neither should you. ;)

BTW, I count two assumptions in your statement about me: That I didn't understand what you wrote; and, that I am a geek (based on your personal assessment that I went "all scientific" I presume). You then used circular logic to conclude that it is because I am a geek that I could not understand what you said, which I believe is probably a fallacy, but I'm not really all that quick, so I'll let the rest of the crowd judge that one.

No you misunderstood, these are two separate things I somehow happened to put together(I said "Besides" and I didn't even straightly meant you are a geek), may confuse you a bit, I am sorry.

Myrkul, I feel slightly smarter about myself. Thank you for vindicating me slightly. :D

No, absolutely not, I just think since it's uncharted territory, we need to tread on it very very carefully.

One way to do it, that I can come up with, is to set up a qualification program, so if a couple want to somehow bring up a boy/girl, they need to learn things and pass all the tests until their instructors are satisfied, otherwise they will need to find their daughter a "mother substitute" somehow when she is old enough.

Yeah I know it sounds a bit silly, but the atmosphere here is that people sometimes are really relaxed, and sometimes full of hostility, so...whatever.

EDIT: I remove some adjectives and decide it's a better idea that if any couple wants to adopt a child, they have to somehow prove that they can do things right, at least when it's somehow competitive, like more than one couple are looking to adopt a child.

PS: I think at least in the U.S, the law somehow favors the mother's right to take custody of her children, right?

Lol. I'm just giving you a hard time. I'm on a forum about cryptography and economics and how those two can apply to each other, which by definition probably means I'm a geek and maybe a few other things by conventional wisdom. Though I admit, I am easily confused by the things people say, very often.

Trust me, there is, if anything, an over supply of children needing adoption.

Look, the simple fact is that the single most important thing for a child growing up is a loving home environment. Two dads, two moms, four moms and three dads, IDGAF. As long as the child is cared for, loved, and not abused, they will grow up to a well-adjusted adult. And in those environments, probably a lot more tolerant than average, except, perhaps, of bullshit.

Okay, then how do you think of the currency policy of interviewing and assessing parents before they are allowed to take a child into adoption? Reasonable or not?

The policy is reasonable, it would be stupid not to evaluate the home you give a child. The criteria, on the other hand, often leave quite a bit to be desired.

So what kind of an organization should be in charge of such a thing? A government institution paid by taxes or some sort of an orphanage funded by voluntary donations?

You really need to ask?

Yes, why not, debate and question everything while we are at it.

Because it's kind of like asking someone you know to be a vegetarian if he'd like the chicken or eggplant parmigiana. ;)
You do know I'm an anarchist, right?

I want to know if you have anything specific in your mind, what is such an organization going to look like.

Well, I have no interest in running an adoption agency, nor seeking the adoption of a child (at minimum not for several years, at least, until my girls are old enough to help change diapers), so I'm probably not the best person to ask. I can make some general statements:

Funding of this organization should be voluntary. This, actually, should go without saying, but I figured I'd say it anyway. As to the details, they could make their funding from adoption fees, which would help narrow the field of people seeking children to those capable of supporting them, or voluntary donations,  or some other way, like selling arts and crafts made by the older kids, or more likely a combination of all of these, plus some ways I haven't thought about.

The market will decide what the best set of criteria are, and there will likely be "niche" adoption agencies, but I expect the "baseline" to be simply a loving home, and capability to support the child financially.

Gays will be fine as long as they live in the USA. Lets ask our first gay president what he thinks of the situations of openly gays in.. Pakistan?

I believe he made a video about that very subject. For once he was an honest guy.

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/pakistan-airs-70-000-obama-ads-denouncing-anti-islam-film/247680


Obama is like the sensation of melting butter on toast in your mouth while your cat is licking your toes in the morning...

One common character for those politicians: They have no idea how money and banks works :P

It's actually almost frightening that the people who are supposed to be in charge of world finances know even less basic mathematics than I do and I scored an F in my last exams, but then again, the only saving grace we have is that they're so incompetent there's no way they'll be able to touch stuff like Bitcoin.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/debacle-liberalism_765681.html?nopager=1#

[...]
Critics of the president may be wrong. Obamacare may turn out to be one of the most successful and popular programs in the history of man. But whether they are right or wrong, there is at least no confusion as to who has ownership of the Affordable Care Act. We all know who stood where, when; who supported it and who opposed it; and we are now in the process of being able to judge the claims of Obamacare against the reality of Obamacare. An abstract debate can now be measured by its true effects on the nation as a whole.

It looks to us that liberalism, in getting what it wanted, will end up doing significant and sustained damage to itself, to public confidence in government (which is already near historic lows), and to its conception of the welfare state.

It would be quite an historical irony if Obama, who raised such extravagant hopes among progressives when he ran for office, turns out to have a shattering effect on contemporary liberalism. But that may be just where we are heading. Barack Obama may turn out to be the best thing to happen to conservatism since Ronald Reagan.

These styles of arguments are I think flawed, like saying the Black Plague was the best thing to happen to Europe.  Yes there is growth through adversity, in some cases, but in other cases, it just crushes people.  Was Communism the best thing to happen to East Germany?  Stalin the best thing that ever happened to Russia?

The logical flaws are self evident.

There has been no greater farce in modern history than authority disguised as liberty: behold, the modern liberal, a living contradiction.

I am guilty of a trolling title on an old thread. Obama is facing History and his minions will have a lot of rewriting to do to save his presidency.
I agree hopping for a worse pain in your hand is not a prescription to forget the pain in your leg.

bump for that.

To be fair, the black plague severely reduced the power of the church, and greatly reduced the labor pool, causing everyone's wages to rise sharply, and through that combination helped usher in the Renaissance. So......

And the rise of Communism did lead to the equality of people in China through Maos reform movement after the exploitation under Japanese and Kumotang forces in China plus the 100 years of shame prior to the revolution that was under the Qing dynasty creating and forming the development of a system to challenge the international capitalist system but point taken :D

The bad thing about Obama, is that he is doing irreversible damage to the USA and the world.


ObamaCare has far greater implications than most people realize...

USA has been fast forwarded to a total surveillance and police state.

It. Cannot. Be. Undone.

Of course it can.  One EMP can bring us back to the stone age.

Stone age thinking, seems right up your ally! :D

Could'nt .... resist..... :)

People don't surveil and police for free. Remove their source of income, and making surveilance more difficult and expensive, can help with the problem. We have tools for both.

The only good thing he's done was not going to war with syria and he was basically forced into that. He's basically a lot of hot air. The candidate Obama would've hated him.

The other good thing about him was that red line speech he gave. That was comedy gold. Not for the people gazed of course, because they never got that joke.

He did get us out of Iraq. McCain wanted to stay in until we've "won"

Sorry mate, but the USA is a one party system. Both Democrat and Republics are the same thing. There is no two party system.

Either candidate would have produced the same results.

For many things, yes, but not for this.

i know i've made a vow to never vote (D) or (R).. except for maybe elizabeth warren.

Rassah, you are misinformed.


Obama said he was going to withdraw troops from Afghanistan too  ::)



Try listening to Michael Savage, he really exposes the corruption.

http://www.thesavagemichael.com/index.html

From what native Indian tribe is she from again?

Why? Will that help you make a decision? She never brought that up as an issue to be considered in her campaign. Her opponent did.

Do you remember exactly why her opponent did bring this up? I believe you vote for someone based on his or her character, it does not matter if that person is right wing or left wing.
Now her family was split about (not her opponent first) the veracity of her claim. Not sure if you know or not how ancestries work withing Native Indian tribes but even with 1/32 blood they can prove it easily because they use a "blood ledger", very close much to the blockchain. Not one tribe claimed her.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/senate/2012/09/15/elizabeth-warren-family-has-mixed-memories-about-heritage/cPMflfaOlndM1jFbimJ4tM/story.html

That was one thing. Her fame came from being one of the political face of the OWS movement. She even said she owned it:
Elizabeth Warren Takes Intellectual Credit for Occupy Wall Street : http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/elizabeth-warren-takes-intellectual-credit-for-occupy-wall-street/

But the truth is, like any other politicians she loved Wall Street money:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/296227/elizabeth-warrens-wall-street-money-machine-kevin-d-williamson
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2012/01/13/serial_hypocrite_elizabeth_warren_still_accepting_wall_street_money

Now there is an obvious push from some sock puppets to make her a new alternative to Hilary for 2016:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/08/06/why-you-shouldnt-underestimate-elizabeth-warren/
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115523/new-republic-november-cover-elizabeth-warren-being-john-malkovich

I believe this is a smart move just in case Hilary gets hit by the Benghazi's lies a few months from now. It is too bad that that plan B is Warren.

I have a problem with liars. I will always truly respect a true socialist believer, a true communist believer over a fake free market libertarian poser any time. A lot (if all) of my closest friends are socialists and we love counter argue all the time, for years since we were teens pretty much.

Fake Squaw is Fake.

Ron Paul for the win.

Served his country, and a doctor.

If someone tells me they are native, or Asian, or African, or of some obscure European decent, I say, "that's nice" and continue not giving a shit, not immediately spend time trying to figure out what race they really are. Because, you know, race doesn't matter.

Conservatives and liberals  are two wings of the same bird.

I like this analogy ;D

Only if you use the currently bastardized political terms. By original definition, Soviet commies and modern democrats are conservative too (resistant, or even hostile, to change)

Maybe this bird?
http://www.toonpool.com/user/362/files/geier_239685.jpg (http://www.toonpool.com/cartoons/Geier_23968)

Maybe you are right, maybe I used the wrong terms. But this applies to republicans and democrats.

Thats the one.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills... Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” - President Barack Obama 2006

Senator....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-lynch-edd/12-reasons-why-obama-is-o_b_4280675.html


Reason Number 12:
 "He is for entertaining the masses. If we have to listen to a president yakitty-yak about this or that for another four years, we might as well pick one with charisma and charm. If you can't find anything else appealing about Obama, you can't deny the fact that the guy is an amazing speaker with wit, fantastic comedic timing and an incredible intellect. In fact, I will go so far as to say that when the man does finally retire from politics, he has a rewarding and lucrative job as a stand up comic awaiting him if he so chooses. When's the last time you heard a president joke about drinking beer, belt out Al Green with poise and precision at a moment's notice and admit to watching the Kardashians?
If these 12 reasons aren't enough to convince that president Obama is one of the best presidents ever, then you are not thinking objectively!"

=============================

This is not the Onion But the Huffington Post.

Obama was hope like Kennedy....now Obama is hopeless

Nobel prize for peace??? Yeah in Libia, Syria ....etc???